Thursday, September 13, 2007

What Happened To Our War Czar?

With the recent furor over the much anticipated "Petraeus Report", I found myself thinking: Whatever happened to our 'War Czar'?

On May 15th, with little fanfare, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute was appointed to the position of Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan or War Czar as the media dubbed it(or did Bush actually call the position War Czar to begin with--it seems too odd, but you never know).

The flaws of such a position are obvious: Isn't it the job of the Secretary of Defense and/or his staff to handle said position? Or perhaps the National Security Advisor? Why do we need to create a new position? Won't this actually generate more red-tape than cut it, as the administration has argued? The answer is clear: It was a publicity stunt to raise morale, to show that the administration is "serious" about the war (wasn't it already?) and it was the creation of a possible "scapegoat" if things go badly, though I think David Petraeus was filling that role already (and with the recent, and fascinating, volley of criticism towards Iraqi politicians, they too will be blamed--everyone is at fault, except the administration).

I think it is also telling that it took so long and that at least three retired four-star generals turned down the position before David Lute accepted it. If the war can be won, why were so many top military officers shying away from the position (and recently retired officers speaking out against it)? We have pundits and politicians still clinging to the idea that victory is possible in Iraq, but the military, the actual leaders who have to conduct it, seem considerably less assured and that is an important sign.

To be fair, those same officers may have shied away from the war, not because it cannot be won, but it cannot be won as it is being waged. It would take a draft--which would immediately tear down the administration if it attempted to institute it--and about another 200,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq for at least a few years to establish some semblance of peace, a return to law and government and a stabilization of society. Those officers realize this and realize that the American public, rightly or wrongly, has no stomach for such a commitment. Still, the bottom line is: America cannot win the war.

I fear what this means. An escalated bloody civil war in Iraq? Ethnic cleansing? De-stabilization in the region? A new haven for terrorists? Oil shortages and a re-distribution of global-economic power? I wish it were possible to create a stable Iraqi state, but the reality of the situation does not lend itself towards such hopes.

Still the administration plods on and so I have to ask: What happened to our war czar? Since he was appointed, Douglas Lute is most memorable for mentioning that the draft should be re-instituted in order to "relieve the increasingly overstretched troops". He all but recanted this statement a day or two later. Since then, little has been heard from him. Was he there for the Petraeus/Crocker testimony? I imagine so, but he didn't say anything as far as I know. So why do we need this position? Where is our war czar and what is he doing?

3 comments:

Moab said...

We have a War Czar?

Can I tell you:

1. How much I hate appending "[insert thing] Czar" to someone's name/position?

What are we saying about this person and our attitude toward solving the problem?

It's as if a "Czar" is the "make it or break it person." As if one person can solve the problem. I don't think this is the way to handle issues of the group. It does, after all, take a village. One day we'll figure this out.

It seems that making someone "War Czar" is VERY MUCH like making someone "War Scapegoat," though the latter doesn't sound as cool.

2. King Bush can pretty much do as he likes, right?

3. I still know people in my line of (current) work that think that the war is going well despite Iraqi polls, public polls, etc.

4. People still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Why the hell did we have the Petraeus meetings on 9/11? And the Democrats set that up. What the HELL were they thinking?

Ajit George said...

Yeah, the whole czar thing is ridiculous as you mentioned--as if one person or office could solve the problem.

Anonymous said...

...it's dead, Jim!